Does Erector Spinae Plane Block Decrease Analgesia Requirements After Minimal-Invasive Posterior Transpedicular Stabilization in Patients With Vertebral Body Fracture? A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized placebo controlled double blind trial. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of ESP block after minimally invasive posterior stabilization for vertebral fractures on opioid consumption, pain, blood loss, disability level, and wound healing complications. METHODOLOGY: Patients indicated for minimal invasive posterior stabilisation were included to the study. Our primary outcome was the opioid consumption and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) measured during the first 48 hours. Secondary outcomes used to measure the short-term outcome included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST). RESULTS: In total, 60 patients were included with a 93.3% follow-up. Average morphine consumption during the PACU (Post Anaesthesia Care Unit) period was 5.357 mg in ESP group and 8.607 mg in placebo group (P = .004). Average VAS during first 24 hour was 3.944 in ESP group and 5.193 in placebo group (P = .046). Blood loss was 14.8 g per screw in ESP group and 15.4 g in placebo group (P = .387). The day2 PROST value was 33.9 in ESP group and 28.8 in placebo group (P = .008) and after 4 weeks 55.2 in ESP group and 49.9 in placebo group (P = .036). No significant differences in ODI were detected. CONCLUSION: The use of ESP block in minimally invasive spinal surgery for posterior fracture stabilization leads to a significant reduction of opioid consumption during PACU stay by 37.7%. Reduction of opioid consumption was accompanied with lower pain (VAS). We found positive effect of the ESP block on short term outcome scores, but no effect on perioperative blood loss and wound healing.

Core outcome set for peripheral regional anesthesia research: a systematic review and Delphi study.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: There is heterogeneity among the outcomes used in regional anesthesia research. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to produce a core outcome set for regional anesthesia research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and Delphi study to develop this core outcome set. A systematic review of the literature from January 2015 to December 2019 was undertaken to generate a long list of potential outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. For each outcome found, the parameters such as the measurement scale, timing and definitions, were compiled. Regional anesthesia experts were then recruited to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi process with incremental thresholds to generate a core outcome set. Once the core outcomes were decided, a final Delphi survey and video conference vote was used to reach a consensus on the outcome parameters. RESULTS: Two hundred and six papers were generated following the systematic review, producing a long list of 224 unique outcomes. Twenty-one international regional anesthesia experts participated in the study. Ten core outcomes were selected after three Delphi survey rounds with 13 outcome parameters reaching consensus after a final Delphi survey and video conference. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first core outcome set for regional anesthesia derived by international expert consensus. These are proposed not to limit the outcomes examined in future studies, but rather to serve as a minimum core set. If adopted, this may increase the relevance of outcomes being studied, reduce selective reporting bias and increase the availability and suitability of data for meta-analysis in this area.

International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

Recommendations for anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A "strong recommendation" was made if ≥75% of participants rated any structure as "definitely include" in any round. A "weak recommendation" was made if >50% of participants rated it as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted; 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view; a "strong recommendation" was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A "weak recommendation" was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice.

Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. METHODS: Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. RESULTS: Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. CONCLUSION: By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. RESULTS: Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.